COURT: The two defendants have pleaded guilty to one count of robbery and one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance and section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance respectively.
In the early morning on 18 April 2023, the 1st defendant, PW1 and friends of them were playing mahjong and cards inside one party room at a factory building in Tai Kok Tsui, Kowloon. After the games, they all fell asleep in the playroom.
At 6.30 am when PW1 was still sleeping, he was attacked by D1 with a metal stick on his head repeatedly for approximately three minutes. D2 meanwhile held a short knife and pointed it towards the neck of PW2. When PW1 regained consciousness, he discovered that HK$12,000 cash in his wallet had gone missing.
Both D1 and D2 were arrested by police in Cheung Chau soon after a report was made.
In one video-recorded interview, D1 stated that as he had lost all his money in the mahjong and card games, and further that PW1 had acted so arrogantly, he then decided with D2 that they should get all the money back and assaulted PW1.
They then, both D1 and D2, returned to the playroom. Along their return to the playroom, D1 picked up a metal rod. D1 told the police that he assaulted PW1 with the metal rod and that D2 took out a knife and pointed the knife at PW2.
In another video-recorded interview, D2 stated that he took out the knife to threaten people inside. As a result of the attack, PW1 sustained, among others, a number of facial injuries, facial lacerations, and bone fractures on his scalp. The injuries could hardly be described as trivial. To cut the matter short, as a result of the attack PW1 lost his left eye.
On the last hearing, sentence was adjourned to obtain both D1 and D2’s background reports. D1 is now 19 and educated up to Form 2 level. He has a clear record.
Apart from the fact that he had little interest in studying, he stayed clear of any criminal activities. According to the probation officer, the defendant also showed genuine remorse for his misdeed.
I first deal with the 2nd count as it is much more serious, in my view, than the 1st count. The assault was a vicious attack and resulting in PW1’s total loss of eyesight. The violent attack with a metal rod on one’s scalp for three minutes could result in fatality. The result could easily cost the life of a young man, and in that case, D1 would face a murder charge. He was very lucky in the sense that the victim was young and recovered well. In short, the attack on that day was not meant to be just giving the recipient, ie PW1, a simple lesson.
In Attorney General v Low Wing Wah, CAAR 8/1995, after a quarrel with the victim concerning some free chairs in a restaurant, the defendant returned with a chopper and attacked the victims which resulted in the loss of an eye. The Court of Appeal was of the view that an initial sentence should be in the region of 5 years’ imprisonment.
In the present case, D1 deliberately struck multiple blows to the victim’s head and resulting in him suffering from a number of lacerations and fractures. The assault continued for three minutes. That in the court’s view was a very lengthy period of time. And as a result, we all know the victim lost one of his eyes.
The victim was only 17 at the time. That means the blindness of his left eye would last a significant period of his life, and inevitably cause, to say the least, a severe inconvenience if not disabilities. In view of that, a starting point of 6 years will be adopted. In view of the defendant’s plea, the sentence is reduced to one of 4 years’ imprisonment, ie 48 months.
As for the 1st count of robbery, a knife was used and displayed to retrieve the lost money. Given the sentencing guidelines on robbery, a starting point of 5 years will be adopted. Likewise, in view of the defendant’s plea the sentence is reduced to one of 40 months’ imprisonment.
As in the course of the robbery, the use of violence had been taken care of by Count 2, and the assault on Count 2 was aimed to teach PW1 a lesson, a separate matter in the overall consideration of the case, the two sentences ought to run consecutively to each other. However, given the age of D1 and his past community service record and the avoidance of a crushing sentence, it is ordered that 24 months of Count 1 will be served consecutively to the 48 months imposed on Count 2.
For the two offences that D1 stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to a total of 72 months’ imprisonment, ie 6 years.